Morality ensconced in the safe casket of immorality Lindsey Snell, abuse, and sanctimonious barbarity

An ongoing intimidation campaign, aimed at cowing the 149 delegates of the Shusha Global Media Forum from 50 countries into regretting their participation and dissuading them from attending its next year's edition, apart from being politically motivated, also raises some profoundly worrying moralistic and ethical concerns as to how the art of persuasion, in our day and age, has regrettably become "sloganish" and frighteningly militant, with open threats acquiring unwarranted acceptance.

Arguments and motives

Perhaps, at the outset, it would behove one to begin with the motivation and to attempt comprehension of the arguments of the detractors. The reasoning employed by those orchestrating this intimidation campaign - the Armenian government, social media warriors with predisposed slanted political or religious views, international NGOs and many others - appears to hinge on two keystones.

Firstly, their argument is that Azerbaijan is a country with an unseemly record of freedom of speech, without an independent media, and such a Forum serves as a facade, aimed at presenting what is terrible in a positive light for purely propagandistic purposes.

Secondly, it has been argued that it was unethical of foreign experts and journalists to attend the Shusha Global Media Forum, whilst “120,000 Armenians were marooned” in Karabakh “thanks to Azerbaijan’s genocidal blockade”. This was, for instance, what Lindsey Snell, a sanctimonious American journalist with painful memories of Turkiye, whose voracious love for anything remotely Armenian is only matched by her disdain and disparagement of Azerbaijan, stated in her Tweet on 31 July.

American journalist Lindsey Snell

Dealing with both contentions will enable us to pry into the motives underpinning them. Firstly, let us assume, for the sake of argument, without prejudice, with a mindset predicated on the lofty ideal that anything we hear, however tasteless and absurd it may sound, may be imbued with a tinge of truth, that there are some issues in the field of media in Azerbaijan that need to be addressed.

If so, how did the Shusha Global Media Forum, which was a world-class event providing a unique platform for in-depth discussion on AI technologies, objectivity in reporting, and combating disinformation, together with prioritising the safety of journalists, militate against what should constitute a civilised nation’s aspirations in this area?

Should Baku consider making the next edition of the Forum more inclusive in terms of the subjects covered and more representative in the context of local and foreign participation? Indeed, it should and, in all probability, will. This was a nascent edition, and one can always polish a gold coin. But was the Forum on 21-23 July insufficiently inclusive and representative to forego a single line of reserved appreciation? 

Any argument, which has, at its premise, sheer negativity and unfettered rejection of plausibility, with the blatant omission of everything meritorious concerning the subject matter, cannot be deemed as ‘grounded’ on objective reality.

Then, there is the second part to be addressed. If the first argument was one predicated on a preconceived bias, with a figuratively effete waving of hand suggesting “nothing good could ever come out of the government of Azerbaijan”, the second is purely political, for it harks back to a carefully constructed Armenian narrative on the situation in Karabakh.

Lindsey Snell, for instance, believes that “Aliyev wants to commit ethnic cleansing, but Armenia is a nation that fights”. She is disdainful of Azerbaijan’s attempts to spread its sovereignty over Karabakh, seeing in this an element of aggression against what she calls “Artsakh”. She argues that, by attending the Forum in Shusha, the delegates condoned Baku’s unseemly acts.

What she fails to mention is that it is Azerbaijan’s sovereign right to control its internationally-recognised territory, and the establishment of a border checkpoint at the entrance to the Lachin Road is a legitimate measure. In the remnants of a separatist Armenian junta unlawfully stationed in Khankandi, she finds “a legitimate creation” and, in Azerbaijan’s endeavour to disarm them, an unmistakable sign of heinous barbarity. Despite Baku’s expressed readiness and desire to provide humanitarian supplies to Karabakh Armenians from Aghdam, as should be the case in the light of international law and on the basis of sovereignty, Snell argues that Baku wants to starve and besiege them in an approach dating back to the Dark Ages.

She says what suits her political aims, avoiding the gist. In this respect, Snell’s exhortations are illustrative of other propagators of this online harassment movement, which probably explains why I have decided to focus on her thoughts.

On a different note, is it not insulting to one’s intelligence to be sanctimoniously dictated as to what one should do? Doesn’t that militate against press freedom? Are the attendees of the Forum so devoid of free will that they should be told what is good for them? There were many sceptics, with no single shred of particularly visible sympathy for the government of Azerbaijan in Shusha on 21-23 July, some of whom asked why they could not visit Khankandi too, knowing little of the death throes of the peace process.

Perhaps, the next Forum’s delegates will be able to achieve their wish, once Baku resumes full control of that part of Karabakh, and, perhaps, the occasion in Shusha, which caused so many detractors of Azerbaijan to become turbocharged, will also play a tiny role in inducing such an eventuality.

Methods bespeaking malice

Furthermore, and this is no less critical, let us be acutely conscious of the fact that the methods employed by the campaigners are not limited to the field of mere persuasion via argument. They specialise in brickbats and pillories and have published the names of the foreign delegates in a compilation akin to a “Wanted List”, aiming to disparage their reputation, hedging their bets that they will be frightened. As Neil Watson, British Journalist, commented: “I selected my career to support those who have no voice. I am proud to be on this list and will gladly die for my right to discover the truth and speak my mind.”

TRT World News Anchor Maria Ramos

Maria Ramos, TRT World News Anchor, received threats with appalling and utterly reprehensible sexual content, demanding that she should repent of her presence in Shusha. Maria told me that she had never been so badly treated in her career. She was aghast and unable to see what genuinely motivated her abusers. What Ramos, in truth, did in Shusha was no more than brilliantly moderating a panel session on ChatGPT-centred themes, with her gravitas and immaculate ability to pull the strings of a debate being laudable, as begets such an experienced journalist.

Dr Maurizio Geri at the Shusha Global Media Forum

Dr Maurizio Geri, a senior policy analyst in international security and global affairs, received countless Twitter messages, accusing him of “being pampered by the Azerbaijani regime causing a humanitarian catastrophe a few kilometres down the road”. Sadly, Dr Geri has subsequently lost one of his collaborations with an institution based in Brussels. He is presently conducting invaluable research on the South Caucasus, focusing on the region’s role as a bridge between the EU and Central Asia, with other concomitant dimensions being incorporated into his work.

Alas, the preponderant majority of the delegates shared the same predicament, with some considering applying for protection. The campaigners preaching morality have used the most immoral methods to make them repent but, from what I can see, this has been counterproductive. The wrath of those propelling this online abuse and these open threats reveal their indignation and brazen bias. They are aghast and hopelessly vindictive. They lust for blood.

…..Too much immorality, dastardly inhumanity and sheer barbarity in what was cracked up to be the opposite….